I know this question has been asked millions of times maybe, and because i am lazy to search, i would like to ask this question.

What is the widest lens or say wide angle lenses can be used for 4x5 say wider than 90mm? some may say that 90mm is wide enough or maybe 120 and so, but i really want something to be so wide for 4x5 camera, say equivalent to 24mm and wider, many times with my 35mm format i use lens 16-35mm at 16mm, but i think i will be happy with range of 20-24mm, so which lens i can use for 4x5 without issues such as image circle coverage?

Thanks

Professional

18-Feb-2011, 23:17

Ignoring 90mm [which i will get later], i am torn between the three: 65, 72, 75. Can i go wider like 55mm?

lenser

18-Feb-2011, 23:26

I use the Schneider 58mmXL in some of my architectural work, but mostly a 90mm Caltar II. When you need it, the 58 is wonderful, but the wide angle effects on perspective are fairly extreme.

Kirk Fry

18-Feb-2011, 23:27

Sure right down to 47mm (47xl Schneider). All it takes is cubic money. KFry

rdenney

19-Feb-2011, 00:06

What is the widest lens or say wide angle lenses can be used for 4x5 say wider than 90mm?

The widest lens on the market that will cover 4x5 is the Schneider Super Angulon XL 47/5.6. It is roughly equivalent to a 14mm on 35mm, being a bit less than a third the format diameter.

If you want to see what that lens can produce, go to the image threads and search for the contributions of Nana Sousa Dias. Nana sets a very high standard for the use of that lens.

Of course, the SA XL lenses in 58 and 72 will also cover, with room for movements (which the 47XL does not have to any great extent).

The 65/5.6 Super Angulon will cover 4x5 with room for some movements, as will all longer non-XL f/5.6 Super Angulons.

The older 65 f/8 Super Angulon will cover 4x5 but without room for movements.

I don't know about Rodenstock Grandagons, but I suspect they are in the same neighborhood of coverage as the non-XL SA f/5.6 design.

A 65 is something like an 18mm lens on 24x36 small format. I find that a 90 is more like a 24 in the way it behaves.

All 65-plus wide-coverage designs (all of which are variations on the biogon design), including the Super Angulon, Grandagon, Nikkor-SW, and Fujinon SWD will cover 4x5.

For older dagor designs such as the Angulon, 90 is about as wide as it gets. There were quite a few vintage 90's that would marginally cover 4x5.

Rick "who owns f/5.6 SA's in 47 (6x9 with room, 6x12 barely), 65, and 90, and f/8 SA's in 65 and 121, but no XL's" Denney

Professional

19-Feb-2011, 00:38

Interesting, so now i have to consider 47mm and 58mm, but i am worry that if i go with 47mm i will see it too much wide, and if i go with 90mm maybe i will see it not wide enough, and many times i use 18mm equivalent FL and sometimes 24mm is fine, 16 on many applications is very wide, but i think i don't like 16mm on 24x36 due to the distortion, but i forgot that i am using a LF, so i can correct with movements, i feel that 20mm equivalent will be the best of both worlds between 16mm and 24mm.

Roger Krueger

19-Feb-2011, 01:53

For really, really wide I use a 35mm APO Grandagon on 4x5. It doesn't cover but it gives you a little under 3.5 x 4.5, about 11.5mm in 35mm equiv. And unlike other ultra-wide solutions, you're not locked to a fixed aspect ratio to get maximum wideness, you can get the 120+ degree diagonal in your choice of shapes, from square to 6 x 12.

Professional

19-Feb-2011, 05:08

For really, really wide I use a 35mm APO Grandagon on 4x5. It doesn't cover but it gives you a little under 3.5 x 4.5, about 11.5mm in 35mm equiv. And unlike other ultra-wide solutions, you're not locked to a fixed aspect ratio to get maximum wideness, you can get the 120+ degree diagonal in your choice of shapes, from square to 6 x 12.

Maybe my question is confusing, so let me clarify it more, i want a wide lens that can be about or equivalent to 20-22mm on 35 format, i don't want so so wide as 14mm equiv. and not above 24mm equiv., in another word, i want something wider than 90mm on 4x5, i know that 35-47mmXL are so ultra wide, maybe i like that but i don't think i will go with that FL most of the time in landscapes, i got used to shoot landscapes at 20-28mm most of the time, so 10-18mm will be so over, and as you said that going with super wide angle may cause that un-covered image circle.

Professional

19-Feb-2011, 05:45

OK, it seems that i may think about 38mm or 47mm because i may use a roll back in the future, so will that be a good idea to go with something like 38mm or 47mm maybe? What will be 38mm and 47mm on 6x12 and 6x17 roll backs equivalent to 35mm format?

jb7

19-Feb-2011, 05:47

It is confusing, because it really sounds like you want a 90mm, although you ask us to ignore it.

You could try an 80mm Super Symmar, I suppose-
but I think you need to look at a 90 again.

It's really difficult to do a format comparison between focal lengths-
because of the different aspect ratio,
and because of the effects that camera movements will have on your compositions-
compared to working with an axially fixed lens.

I think, if you went out with a 90mm, you'd like it-

Professional

19-Feb-2011, 06:11

It is confusing, because it really sounds like you want a 90mm, although you ask us to ignore it.

You could try an 80mm Super Symmar, I suppose-
but I think you need to look at a 90 again.

It's really difficult to do a format comparison between focal lengths-
because of the different aspect ratio,
and because of the effects that camera movements will have on your compositions-
compared to working with an axially fixed lens.

I think, if you went out with a 90mm, you'd like it-
In fact i will buy 90mm no doubt, i just want another lens wider than 90mm, and when i typed my OP i forgot that i may use a roll back on my 4x5, so then in this case i should add more options maybe.

engl

19-Feb-2011, 07:57

Why not start with the 90mm and consider what you want once you have some experience? Wides feel different on large format, due to movements, aspect ratio and scenes picked, basing your choice on what you use with 135 format will be difficult.

There are good modern 47mm, 58mm, 65mm, 72mm, 75mm, 80mm lenses available, you just need to figure out which one(s) you want/need.

Jack Dahlgren

19-Feb-2011, 08:07

I went for many years with just a single lens. Take your new camera out and take some photographs. That will teach you what lens you might want next.

ic-racer

19-Feb-2011, 08:09

Maybe my question is confusing, so let me clarify it more, i want a wide lens that can be about or equivalent to 20-22mm on 35 format

75mm

If it were me, I'd get a 90mm. They are one of the most popular lenses for 4x5 and they are cheap. The one I use I got from KEH for one dollar per millimeter. The 75mm lenses can cost quite a bit more.

Two23

19-Feb-2011, 09:19

75mm

The 75mm lenses can cost quite a bit more.

You also will need a bag bellows and probably a center spot filter for lenses that wide. If you need it, you need it, but costs start adding up here.

Kent in SD

Professional

19-Feb-2011, 10:14

Thank you very much!

Leonard Evens

19-Feb-2011, 10:50

You have to look at the image circle as well as the focal length. Lenses of focal length 65 mm or less seldom have image circles much larger than what is necessary to cover the 4 x 5 frame. Such lenses are better thought of as being designed for 6 x 9 format. Usually in view camera photography you want some movement to allow for rise/fall or shifts to extend the usefulness of the lens. If such movements are not feasible, that limits significantly the circumstances in which you would want to use one.

In my case I have 90 mm and 75 mm lenses. The 90 mm lenses has a large enough image circle to make it a very useful lens. The 75 mm lens has a smaller image circle. As a result, it is less useful than one might think. For example, I got it so that I could encompass a whole building vertically or a building facade horizontally in circumstances where I couldn't get far enough back. Because of the limited rise I found that even in circumstances in which I could find a position in which my 75 mm would allow me to get the whole height of the building in the frame, I often ended up with a large empty foreground. There is a 72 mm lens with a large image circle, but it is very heavy and expensive, and in any case I don't have it. I couldn't find a 65 mm lens which would do me much good in such circumstances.

There is one situation in which having a wide angle lens with limited image circle can be helpful. You can use it to take multiple images which are then assembled with software to form what is in effect a very wide angle image. I've done that with my 75 mm lens to encompass a long building facade where I could not get back very far. I took two pictures, one pointed to the left and one pointed to the right and assembled them in one image using hugin. See the example below.

Robert Opheim

19-Feb-2011, 11:02

I too enjoy wide angle. Before really getting involved with 4x5 I was shooting with a 1950's Brooks Veriwide which is a 6x10 format. On 4x5 now for a number of years I have been shooting with a 75mm Grandagon. Even the 75mm distorts - especially in the corners. It is significantly wider than the 90mm Grandagon that I have and is able to get much of the wide angle shots that I want to take. I am an architect an still shoot interiors and exterior with this camera - as well as landscapes etc. I would like to have an ultra wide lens such as the 58mm - it can help make amazing images - look at Bruce Barnbaum's famous images of the cannon in Utah - I think it is Cannon Du Shay.

Ivan J. Eberle

19-Feb-2011, 12:29

This advice might sound heretical here, but I'd suggest not trying to make large format do the jobs that smaller formats do more admirably. Ultrawide angle is one of these, at least it is for me.

We tend to find 35mm images made with ultrawide lenses impactful because of the exaggerated near-far relationships, extreme resolving power, and extreme DOF.

If this is what you're after too, but require better resolution, MF has lenses in this range that yet have tremendous resolution (some approaching 100 lpmm), slightly less DOF and a bit less exaggerated near-far relationships. I find a 35mm length lens in 645 to be a great focal length, "equivalent" FOV to about a 21mm in 35mm (but seeming much wider in practice because with 135 format one is usually cropping to paper size whereas not much at all in 645). With ultrawides in smaller formats up to 645 or 2-1/4, camera moves are unnecessary to achieve deep focus.

In 4x5, my 90mm Nikkor SW f/8 is plenty wide (similar "no crop needed" advantage) with a very generous image circle and about as sharp a lens as 4x5 gets. Other shorter lens length options tend to lose resolution in the corners, to such a degree that the advantages of 4x5 over smaller formats becomes much less significant.

Professional

19-Feb-2011, 14:13

So if i get 90mm and i feel i want something a bit more wider later, what will be a wider lens choice?

Steve Barber

19-Feb-2011, 14:13

Hi all,

I know this question has been asked millions of times maybe, and because i am lazy to search, i would like to ask this question.

What is the widest lens or say wide angle lenses can be used for 4x5 say wider than 90mm? some may say that 90mm is wide enough or maybe 120 and so, but i really want something to be so wide for 4x5 camera, say equivalent to 24mm and wider, many times with my 35mm format i use lens 16-35mm at 16mm, but i think i will be happy with range of 20-24mm, so which lens i can use for 4x5 without issues such as image circle coverage?

Thanks

I do not think you are going to get what you are looking for in going from a 35mm frame with a 20-24mm lens to a 4x5 frame using a similarly wide lens, say 75-90mm, because of the difference in aspect ratios. I suggest you try a different approach with an aspect ratio that is wider than the 35mm’s 1.5 to 1, width to height..

I like the Hasselblad XPan, which, basically, does this with a panoramic ratio of about 2.8 to 1. Sometimes, however, the problem with the XPan is that it will not allow large enough prints to get the desired detail. For this reason, I started using a Da-Yi 6x17 back on a 4x5 camera. This works, within the limitations that are caused by moving the film plane away from the normal 4x5 film plane location, and greatly increases the film area allowing a much larger print than a similar frame from the XPan. But, most of the time, it is over-kill and causes unnecessary inconvenience with the time and effort needed to switch to the Da-Yi ground glass back for focusing and, then, switching, again, to the Da-Yi film back to make the shot. Worse, you end up with a negative that is probably larger than needed and too large for a 4x5 enlarger.

What, finally, for me, provided the solution is to use a cut down dark slide with a 4x5 camera. This gives a frame that is almost 2 times the length and width of the XPan frame with its same aspect ratio of 2.8 to 1 and three and one half times more film area making it possible to produce large enough prints, most of the time, where the XPan is not large enough, while still using a 4x5 enlarger. If a negative larger than that is needed, then I use the Da-Yi or a cut down 8x10 dark slide with an 8x10 camera and a comparable lens for it.

Normal for the XPan camera is a 45mm lens, which, with XPan’s larger frame size, is the equivalent of your 22mm for the width of a regular 35mm frame. The 4x5 camera, with a cut down dark slide, gives a negative twice as long and wide as the XPan’s and the equivalent lens would be a 90mm. You could start with that, try it on a 4x5 camera and, if it does not seem wide enough, then try cutting down a dark slide to make a frame about 42x120mm in height and width and see if that is not more what you are looking for. If that does not work, then try a 65 or 72mm lens. However, I think you will find that the 90, with a wider aspect ratio, will be wide enough and, in either the regular 4x5 format or what I think of as the "Super XPan", it will be much more useful than the wider ones, such as the 65 or 72mm lenses.

Professional

19-Feb-2011, 15:46

I looked at a PDF file of Schneider lens chart and saw that circle image diagram, and from what i see that some wide XL lenses cover 4x5 such as 58, 72, 80,..., so is those 58 and 72 from the diagram have issues i don't know or there are different models of 72 and 75 that some will cover and some not? I am sure that 90mm will be fine and wide i want, but i want to discuss and see if there any wider option than 90mm for 4x5 to go with, if there is then i will look at it, if there is not then simply i have to stay with 90mm and don't think wider, also from some comments i found out that with some adjustments or movements i may lose some rooms with 90mm so then i feel i want something wider that i can go if i have to do adjustments, i am new to this LF world and i want to know most of what it should be, and i really don't ask to have the widest lens for LF, just i want to be at wide as maybe 20 or even 18mm sometimes, i don't want something as 10mm or 14mm on 35mm equiv., and that 90mm from some charts it come to about 24mm or 27mm of 35mm equiv., honestly i know that there are times i want to go even wider than 22mm.

vizion

20-Feb-2011, 08:56

I can recommend the 58mm super angulon XL -- beautiful lens but do not forget to budget for the center filter. This comment also applies to the 90mm Rodenstock Grandagon N 4.5 which is my preferred lens at 90mm.

David

Ari

20-Feb-2011, 09:33

Or try a modern-ish 75mm f5.6 from any of the big lens makers.

Professional

20-Feb-2011, 11:47

I can recommend the 58mm super angulon XL -- beautiful lens but do not forget to budget for the center filter. This comment also applies to the 90mm Rodenstock Grandagon N 4.5 which is my preferred lens at 90mm.

David

Thanks David,

I was not sure which 90mm to get, so is that one or SA?

Professional

20-Feb-2011, 11:48

Or try a modern-ish 75mm f5.6 from any of the big lens makers.

Will be in the checking out list.

rdenney

20-Feb-2011, 19:40

OK, it seems that i may think about 38mm or 47mm because i may use a roll back in the future, so will that be a good idea to go with something like 38mm or 47mm maybe? What will be 38mm and 47mm on 6x12 and 6x17 roll backs equivalent to 35mm format?

It is difficult to compare short focal lengths between different shapes and sizes of formats. You can divide the focal length by the horizontal dimension of the format, or by the diagonal of the format, and that gives you a factor that can be applied to other formats. But that only gives you an idea.

But, to do some math, a 21mm lens in 24x36 format is just about half the diagonal of that format. A 75mm lens gives you about half the diagonal in 4x5. For 6x12, it's about 60 or 65mm that gives you half the diagonal. But 6x12 is such a different shape than 4x5 the feel will be different.

I find that a 47 on the 6x12 format will give me an extremely wide sense--perhaps sometime like I would expect with a 17 or 18mm lens on small format. On 6x7, a 47 is a strong wide--sorta like a 24 on small format. With 6x9, a direct comparison is much easier, the 47 is about like a 20.

On 4x5, a 90 feels to me like a 24 does on small format, and a 65 feels like an 18.

If you want the feel of a 20-22mm small-format lens on 4x5, see if you can borrow a 75 to try out.

By the way, if you get a 47 for use with roll-film, you don't need the latest 47XL. The older 47/5.6 non-XL will cover roll-film formats, though it's marginal on 6x12.

Remember that focal length and coverage are different dimensions. The ability to move the camera close to get the exaggerated perspective is a function of focal length only, as long as the lens in question has sufficient coverage for your format.

All modern 75mm large-format lenses have coverage for 4x5, including the Schneider Super Angulon (any of them), Rodenstock Grandagon, Fuji SWD, and Nikkor-SW. If you want to use movements, then the variations in their coverage become more important. Nearly all 65mm wide-coverage designs will also cover 4x5, though some were designed for smaller formats (the old 65/8 Super Angulon is the most marginal of these). Lenses shorter than that are too short for what you describe, in the 4x5 format.

There are many ways to convert between equivalent focal lengths in different formats, but they feel different in different formats, especially considering the different way in which most people approach the different types of cameras. What seems nice-and-wide on 35mm might seems freakishly wide on 4x5, when comparing equivalent focal lengths.

When I want the feel of a 24mm lens on small format, I grab a 45 for 6x7, a 47 for 6x9, a 65 for 6x12, and a 90 for 4x5.

Rick "who likes short lenses" Denney

Professional

20-Feb-2011, 21:36

It is difficult to compare short focal lengths between different shapes and sizes of formats. You can divide the focal length by the horizontal dimension of the format, or by the diagonal of the format, and that gives you a factor that can be applied to other formats. But that only gives you an idea.

But, to do some math, a 21mm lens in 24x36 format is just about half the diagonal of that format. A 75mm lens gives you about half the diagonal in 4x5. For 6x12, it's about 60 or 65mm that gives you half the diagonal. But 6x12 is such a different shape than 4x5 the feel will be different.

I find that a 47 on the 6x12 format will give me an extremely wide sense--perhaps sometime like I would expect with a 17 or 18mm lens on small format. On 6x7, a 47 is a strong wide--sorta like a 24 on small format. With 6x9, a direct comparison is much easier, the 47 is about like a 20.

On 4x5, a 90 feels to me like a 24 does on small format, and a 65 feels like an 18.

If you want the feel of a 20-22mm small-format lens on 4x5, see if you can borrow a 75 to try out.

By the way, if you get a 47 for use with roll-film, you don't need the latest 47XL. The older 47/5.6 non-XL will cover roll-film formats, though it's marginal on 6x12.

Remember that focal length and coverage are different dimensions. The ability to move the camera close to get the exaggerated perspective is a function of focal length only, as long as the lens in question has sufficient coverage for your format.

All modern 75mm large-format lenses have coverage for 4x5, including the Schneider Super Angulon (any of them), Rodenstock Grandagon, Fuji SWD, and Nikkor-SW. If you want to use movements, then the variations in their coverage become more important. Nearly all 65mm wide-coverage designs will also cover 4x5, though some were designed for smaller formats (the old 65/8 Super Angulon is the most marginal of these). Lenses shorter than that are too short for what you describe, in the 4x5 format.

There are many ways to convert between equivalent focal lengths in different formats, but they feel different in different formats, especially considering the different way in which most people approach the different types of cameras. What seems nice-and-wide on 35mm might seems freakishly wide on 4x5, when comparing equivalent focal lengths.

When I want the feel of a 24mm lens on small format, I grab a 45 for 6x7, a 47 for 6x9, a 65 for 6x12, and a 90 for 4x5.

Rick "who likes short lenses" Denney

Thanks,

I just decided to get 90mm first, then later 75mm for 4x5, i am sure those 2 lenses will do a great job for me at the wide side, and about roll film formats i will think about it later, maybe i will use good normal or a bit wide lens and not looking to be super wide lens on it, as you said, that dimension of 6x17 maybe i will not think to go with ultra wide lens, it will give me panoramic view whatever lens it is and that is enough for me.

Cornelius

21-Feb-2011, 03:24

For what it's worth my vote goes for the 75mm too. I personally don't like the angle of view from a 90, and regularly use a 120mm except when I a bit more coverage. I use the Grandagon 4.5 MC whenever I'm shooting interiors. It's equivalent to a 19mm in 35mm format, has good illumination, and a fair amount of movement. Like others have noted earlier you may need a bag bellows though I get by without one. Good luck!

Professional

24-Feb-2011, 03:49

For what it's worth my vote goes for the 75mm too. I personally don't like the angle of view from a 90, and regularly use a 120mm except when I a bit more coverage. I use the Grandagon 4.5 MC whenever I'm shooting interiors. It's equivalent to a 19mm in 35mm format, has good illumination, and a fair amount of movement. Like others have noted earlier you may need a bag bellows though I get by without one. Good luck!

Honestly speaking, 90mm is there in my list for sure, but the other lens i was thinking to add after 90mm and 210 many times was 75mm, i thought about 72 or 65 or even those 38/47 XL lenses, but i just keep my mind going back and forth on 75mm, and something telling me that i won't look for wider than 75mm but i am sure i will think about something a bit wider if i get only 90mm, so i will get 90mm anyway[i hope] then i have to see if that 75mm will be next.

Ivan J. Eberle

25-Feb-2011, 11:14

If you're used to 35mm, be advised that the look is different with "effective equivalent" lenses and you won't get the same final imagery because the focal lengths are just different. Very different. A 90mm does not equal 24mm, period.

The looming large foreground subject is more of a necessity in 35mm for impact when the images are typically used so small. You may find you don't need this look in larger prints, and are therefore freed to create more subtle and satisfying imagery with more natural perspective using LF.

Or perhaps not... But the 90mm should answer the question of how much different angle of view is from "equivalent" focal lengths.

John Berry

25-Feb-2011, 11:38

It is confusing, because it really sounds like you want a 90mm, although you ask us to ignore it.

You could try an 80mm Super Symmar, I suppose-
but I think you need to look at a 90 again.

It's really difficult to do a format comparison between focal lengths-
because of the different aspect ratio,
and because of the effects that camera movements will have on your compositions-
compared to working with an axially fixed lens.

I think, if you went out with a 90mm, you'd like it- Bingo! Going wider than 90 on 4x5 makes everything get real little real fast. You WILL be getting a roll film back when you see how much you will be throwing away from a 4x5 format. To get a photograph from the picture you took. They are after all, two different things.

rdenney

26-Feb-2011, 23:45

If you're used to 35mm, be advised that the look is different with "effective equivalent" lenses and you won't get the same final imagery because the focal lengths are just different. Very different. A 90mm does not equal 24mm, period.

I've heard statements like these over the years, but I don't get it. When I place the camera in position X, a 24mm lens on a 24x36 camera provides about the same image as a 90mm lens on 4x5.

The differences that do exist relate to the differences between small and large format. The depth of field will be different, unless one stops down more (which one will usually do), which in turn forces a longer shutter speed with its attendant visual effects. But that would be just as true comparing normal and long lenses as it is with short lenses.

And then there are differences resulting from the movements possible with large format, though my 24mm TSE tilt-shift lens for my Canon has enough movements to achieve the most common effects I might achieve with a 90mm lens on 4x5.

And there is a significant different in the psychology of the photographer, in that positioning the two cameras the same way might not even be possible. The 4x5 camera will always be on a tripod, and the photogapher will usually want to view the ground glass. That presents a different set of constraints than when using the small camera. And it is true that the view in the ground glass isn't the same as the view through a viewfinder, and that might cause the photographer to see things differently.

But the perspective of the scene is entiely dictated by the camera position. The focal length just controls how much of that scene can be squeezed into the image frame.

Rick "who has compard equivalent focal lengths across a range of formats" Denney

Armin Seeholzer

27-Feb-2011, 04:43

If you are a wide guy like me you will use a 75/72mm much more then a 90mm and in my case I use the 47mm XL even more then the 90mm!

Cheers Armin

P.S, Here you can see my 47 mm XL at work the 55mm was even to long for it I could not go further away the lake was just starting behind me!!!
http://artfoto.ch/www.artfoto.ch/Willkommen.html

Professional

28-Feb-2011, 07:47

I am a wide guy, but that doesn't mean i am shooting always ultra wide, on my 35mm the most FL i use for general is 24mm, but when i shoot landscapes or architectures then i can easily shoot wider than 24mm, most of the time with 16mm or 18mm [i use full frame camera], even with medium format i like to go wider than 24mm equivalent but i just don't like so curved shots on most of my work, and i think from what i read here that i may use movements many times then i have to think something wider than 90mm for sure, but i am not in rush as i said.

Jim Noel

2-Mar-2011, 14:29

Maybe my question is confusing, so let me clarify it more, i want a wide lens that can be about or equivalent to 20-22mm on 35 format, i don't want so so wide as 14mm equiv. and not above 24mm equiv., in another word, i want something wider than 90mm on 4x5, i know that 35-47mmXL are so ultra wide, maybe i like that but i don't think i will go with that FL most of the time in landscapes, i got used to shoot landscapes at 20-28mm most of the time, so 10-18mm will be so over, and as you said that going with super wide angle may cause that un-covered image circle.

What you are looking for is a lens in the 60-66 mm FL range. There are several 65mm lenses available, both modern and old,

Professional

4-Mar-2011, 14:21

I borrowed a 65mm SA from a friend and found out that this lens can't be used properly on my Shen Hao, so i think my options will be 75 and 72.

Lachlan 717

4-Mar-2011, 14:43

I borrowed a 65mm SA from a friend and found out that this lens can't be used properly on my Shen Hao, so i think my options will be 75 and 72.

I use a 72mm Schneider on my Shen Hao with a bag bellow. Very easy to use, even with a standard (not recessed) lens board.

Professional

4-Mar-2011, 14:58

I use a 72mm Schneider on my Shen Hao with a bag bellow. Very easy to use, even with a standard (not recessed) lens board.

What do you mean?

Lachlan 717

4-Mar-2011, 15:24

What do you mean?

What do you mean by what do you mean?

rdenney

4-Mar-2011, 16:03

What do you mean?

Some lenses can be accommodated on a particular camera, even when the lens is too short for the bellows and the arrangement of the standards, by using a lens board with a center section that is recessed back into the camera. What he was saying was that his Shen Hao will accommodate a 72mm lens even on a regular flat lens board.

Rick "who hates recessed lens boards but who has used them" Denney

Professional

4-Mar-2011, 16:36

What do you mean by what do you mean?

I mean what do you mean by "bag bellow"? and what is recessed lens board?

rdenney

4-Mar-2011, 17:17

I mean what do you mean by "bag bellow"? and what is recessed lens board?

A bag bellows has loose folds, and just one or two, rather than stiff pleats. It is designed for short lenses.

Here's a picture of one mounted on a Shen-Hao camera from the Badger Graphic site:

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/images/products/290.jpg

And here's a picture of a recessed board to go with my previous description. This Cambo board, as pictured on the Calumet Photo site, is quite large so the recessed portion isn't as small as it looks. But it still makes the controls of the shutter hard to reach.

http://www.calumetphoto.com/_static/webUpload/730/28_CB15080_2.jpg

Rick "pictures worth a thousand words" Denney

Professional

4-Mar-2011, 19:41

A bag bellows has loose folds, and just one or two, rather than stiff pleats. It is designed for short lenses.

Here's a picture of one mounted on a Shen-Hao camera from the Badger Graphic site:

https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/images/products/290.jpg

And here's a picture of a recessed board to go with my previous description. This Cambo board, as pictured on the Calumet Photo site, is quite large so the recessed portion isn't as small as it looks. But it still makes the controls of the shutter hard to reach.

http://www.calumetphoto.com/_static/webUpload/730/28_CB15080_2.jpg

Rick "pictures worth a thousand words" Denney

Ah ok, I was thinking that bag bellow is called "wide angle" bellow on some websites, or maybe "universal"? And what is that recessed board is differ than standard lens board?

Thank you very much!

Cornelius

4-Mar-2011, 21:07

The rear element is pushed closer to the film plane but the front standard is moved forward thereby allowing for more movement with the wide angle.

rdenney

5-Mar-2011, 07:56

Ah ok, I was thinking that bag bellow is called "wide angle" bellow on some websites

Bag bellows = wide-angle bellows. A true bag bellows has only one fold, and wide-angle bellows often have two or more loose folds, but in practice the terms mean the same thing: A loose-folding bellows that allows shift movements with very short lenses. Some makers have a "universal" bellows that provides a pleated section for long extension and a bag section for movements with short lenses, but most cameras employ separate bellows for these functions.